Every once in a while, I look into various facets of the RCC to try to figure you guys out a little more, get a better understanding, etc. My family (up until a couple generations ago) was Roman Catholic, and so I have a love for the Latin tradition. Now, being Orthodox, I'm the closest thing my family has when it comes to returning to it's roots in Rome. I treasure what few religious antiques I've been able to salvage from my family.

Most recently, I've been trying to understand the College of Cardinals. It confuses me. A lot. It's something that developed over many centuries and even recently has undergone changes in the way it functions, so it's been difficult for me to pin down exactly how it did form, what it constitutes and how it has and does today function. I have several questions, which include learning about the history and function of the College, as well as how the Orthodox view it and what would happen if unity were to occur between our churches.

What I'm really trying to wrap my mind around, I guess is really one big question. That is:

What do the "Orders" actually mean?

I understand that Cardinal Bishops have to be bishops (this includes the EC patriarchs) and are traditionally senior Curia officials. A Cardinal Bishop always serves as the Dean of the College. Then, there are Cardinal Priests. These confuse me greatly. Wikipedia gives Eugênio de Araújo Sales as an example of a "Cardinal Priest." He is the longest-serving cardinal in the College. Cardinal priests don't have to be bishops, but some are. How are you a bishop and a presbyter? I understand that "cardinal priest" is a separate title all together from the office to which a given cleric is ordained, but it turns confusing when I read the above link that tells me Cardinal Sales served as archbishop of São Sebastião do Rio de Janeiro for thirty years, but in his photograph he is clearly vested as a priest, yet wearing the red of a cardinal! This is highly confusing to me. If he was a bishop, how is he now a priest? Does that mean he no longer shares in the office of the episcopacy? That can't be right. He must still be a bishop. So...why he is actually vested a priest? This seems to hint that one's ordination and their order in the College is actually connected, but still not. I'm sure you can see my frustration.

This is also seen in the order of Cardinal Deacons. the current Protodeacon of the College is Jean-Louis Tauran. He was ordained a priest in 1969, then made titular archbishop of Thelepte by Pope John Paul II in 1990, but was actually consecrated to the episcopal office a year later! How can one be a "titular bishop" while still only a priest? Then, in 2003, he was made a Cardinal Deacon, which means liturgically he wears a mitre simplex, but also a dalmatic. What? I just don't get all of this conflation of offices. Very confusing to me!

My second question has to do with possible unity between the two churches. That is:

What would have to happen with the College of Cardinals given the unity of the churches?

Of course, this is really more directed at the Orthodox readers here. Of course, as Orthodox, we would all contend that the Pope of Rome would have to lay aside his claim to universal jurisdiction of the Catholic Church and be recognized instead as the primus-inter-pares of the Church, the most honored among primates, respected amongst his brother bishops and fellow primates of autocephalous churches. This means, of course, that the Pope of Rome would have no binding authority over the bishops outside of his own jurisdiction (and, technically, within it either. Rather, the Holy Synod of the Roman Church would affirm the nomination of a diocese. The Pope could not appoint a diocesan bishop at his own will.

However, the Holy Synod of a church doesn't have to be EVERY bishop of that particular church. The Holy Synod of Russia, for example, does not include every bishop. One of the objections to the Roman Church that sometimes comes from the Orthodox is the College of Cardinals, saying that it would have to be abolished so that every bishop has a "voice." While I could see the need for reform to the College, could it not still suffice as a sort of "Holy Synod" as such? I'm not sure it's something that would have to be thrown out. Thoughts?

Logged

"Hades is not a place, no, but a state of the soul. It begins here on earth. Just so, paradise begins in the soul of a man here in the earthly life. Here we already have contact with the divine..." -St. John, Wonderworker of Shanghai and San Francisco, Homily On the Sunday of Orthodoxy

Every once in a while, I look into various facets of the RCC to try to figure you guys out a little more, get a better understanding, etc. My family (up until a couple generations ago) was Roman Catholic, and so I have a love for the Latin tradition. Now, being Orthodox, I'm the closest thing my family has when it comes to returning to it's roots in Rome. I treasure what few religious antiques I've been able to salvage from my family.

Most recently, I've been trying to understand the College of Cardinals. It confuses me. A lot. It's something that developed over many centuries and even recently has undergone changes in the way it functions, so it's been difficult for me to pin down exactly how it did form, what it constitutes and how it has and does today function. I have several questions, which include learning about the history and function of the College, as well as how the Orthodox view it and what would happen if unity were to occur between our churches.

What I'm really trying to wrap my mind around, I guess is really one big question. That is:

What do the "Orders" actually mean?

I understand that Cardinal Bishops have to be bishops (this includes the EC patriarchs) and are traditionally senior Curia officials. A Cardinal Bishop always serves as the Dean of the College. Then, there are Cardinal Priests. These confuse me greatly. Wikipedia gives Eugênio de Araújo Sales as an example of a "Cardinal Priest." He is the longest-serving cardinal in the College. Cardinal priests don't have to be bishops, but some are. How are you a bishop and a presbyter? I understand that "cardinal priest" is a separate title all together from the office to which a given cleric is ordained, but it turns confusing when I read the above link that tells me Cardinal Sales served as archbishop of São Sebastião do Rio de Janeiro for thirty years, but in his photograph he is clearly vested as a priest, yet wearing the red of a cardinal! This is highly confusing to me. If he was a bishop, how is he now a priest? Does that mean he no longer shares in the office of the episcopacy? That can't be right. He must still be a bishop. So...why he is actually vested a priest? This seems to hint that one's ordination and their order in the College is actually connected, but still not. I'm sure you can see my frustration.

This is also seen in the order of Cardinal Deacons. the current Protodeacon of the College is Jean-Louis Tauran. He was ordained a priest in 1969, then made titular archbishop of Thelepte by Pope John Paul II in 1990, but was actually consecrated to the episcopal office a year later! How can one be a "titular bishop" while still only a priest? Then, in 2003, he was made a Cardinal Deacon, which means liturgically he wears a mitre simplex, but also a dalmatic. What? I just don't get all of this conflation of offices. Very confusing to me!

It is confusing. Look to history, as always, to simplify things.

The college is a post schism creation. Like the Vatican's papacy.

Just as the supreme pontiff started out as the Archbishop of Rome, the college too grew out of the episcopal/clerical set up at Rome.

The "cardinal bishops" were the suffragan to the Archbishop, having their see in the suburbs of Rome. They consecrated the new archbishop when elected, but, since the canons forbid the transfer of a bishop (a rule universally broken nowadays, and for some time), they were not eligible to become Archbishop.

The "cardinal priests" were the clergy assigned to the various Churches of Rome: incardated priest meant permanently assigned. They were the chief candiates to succeed as archbishop, and at one point a canon was adopted at Rome (8th century, IIRC) that the new archbishop had to be selected from them. Cardinal also came to mean "important" and hence the cardinal priests were the dean of the important parishes.

The "cardinal deacons" were originally the seven deacons (and, based on Acts, only seven: several of the Fathers note this local custom of Rome) who served with the archbishop, as he went from cathedral to cathedral. Progressively they also became candidates for election as archbishop.

Like anywere else, at the death of the archbishop, the bishops, the priests, and the deacons; the laity; and the civil authorities would gather to elect the successor. Out of this came the conclave.

With the codification of the Ultramontanist claims of the Vatican, this set up was modified. The cardinal bishops first became the sole electors, then including the rest of the clergy (the cardinal priests and cardinal deacons). As the Vatican required bishops of other areas at Rome (increasing less to gather in Synod, as the other Patriarchates, but to receive orders from the center), it assigned them among the cardinal priests at the churches of Rome, their "titular" church in Rome, opposed to their real see back whereever. If they mainted episcopal duties back home, they were assigned among the deacons, to have an official attachment in Rome, but a minimum of duties in Rome. Members of the crowing Curia, the administrative body of the Vatican, also were named to the cardinal deacons so they had a specific status in the system.

So you have two systems opperating on two level: one, the local hiearchy of Archbishop, bishop, priest, deacon (but more or less in name only, which is how a bishop can be a cardinal priest or deacon), and the various hierarchies in the patriarchate of the West being plugged into that system (so bishops can be bishops at home, but of titular rank of priest and deacons, to take part in the election of the bishop of Rome-now the Supreme pontiff-which elsewhere remained a local affair.

My second question has to do with possible unity between the two churches. That is:

What would have to happen with the College of Cardinals given the unity of the churches?

Good question: Irish Melkite corrected me recently, that the "sui juris" primates are often named cardinals, but not ex officio, or something like that. My guess is that the Vatican would want that to become ex officio. We should fight such a suggestion.

Of course, this is really more directed at the Orthodox readers here. Of course, as Orthodox, we would all contend that the Pope of Rome would have to lay aside his claim to universal jurisdiction of the Catholic Church and be recognized instead as the primus-inter-pares of the Church, the most honored among primates, respected amongst his brother bishops and fellow primates of autocephalous churches. This means, of course, that the Pope of Rome would have no binding authority over the bishops outside of his own jurisdiction (and, technically, within it either. Rather, the Holy Synod of the Roman Church would affirm the nomination of a diocese. The Pope could not appoint a diocesan bishop at his own will.

However, the Holy Synod of a church doesn't have to be EVERY bishop of that particular church. The Holy Synod of Russia, for example, does not include every bishop. One of the objections to the Roman Church that sometimes comes from the Orthodox is the College of Cardinals, saying that it would have to be abolished so that every bishop has a "voice." While I could see the need for reform to the College, could it not still suffice as a sort of "Holy Synod" as such? I'm not sure it's something that would have to be thrown out. Thoughts?

The college is a Holy Synod, although it has no ruling powers like an Orthodox one, just advisory. If the Vatican did give up its ultramontanist claims, it would devolve back to the local Holy Synod of Rome. The real change would be the various episcopal conferences becoming autcephalous, autonomous and depend local Holy Synods.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

My friend and brother, Isa, has provided an excellent overview. I might quibble with a point here and there, but it's late and I'm tired. See the linked site by a gentleman named Salvador Mirandas, who is arguably the foremost English language historian on the subject:

This is primarily based on information I read during the period of my life when I was very seriously considering conversion to Catholicism. Some of this information may be incorrect, and I would be more than happy to be corrected if such is the case.

On the question of Orders, historically (as in, a great deal of time ago), Cardinal Bishops were always bishops. Cardinal Priests were always priests. Cardinal Deacons were always deacons. As the Papacy gained in power and influence, it slowly started to become the case that nearly all Cardinals are bishops. In fact, now, it is only elderly priests who are elevated to the College who are not ordained (and, I believe, they may choose to be if they so desire).

As for what would happen if a reunion were to occur, I have some thoughts. Number one, the College could be eliminated. I find this to be somewhat unlikely. Number two, the Cardinals could continue to be bishops, but the College could be transformed into something closer to a synod, and it would then function as a synod. Number three, the Cardinals could cease to (generally speaking) be bishops, and instead could be priests and deacons from within the diocese of Rome, who would then elect the Pope upon the last Pope's death or retirement.

Every once in a while, I look into various facets of the RCC to try to figure you guys out a little more, get a better understanding, etc. My family (up until a couple generations ago) was Roman Catholic, and so I have a love for the Latin tradition. Now, being Orthodox, I'm the closest thing my family has when it comes to returning to it's roots in Rome. I treasure what few religious antiques I've been able to salvage from my family.

Most recently, I've been trying to understand the College of Cardinals. It confuses me. A lot. It's something that developed over many centuries and even recently has undergone changes in the way it functions, so it's been difficult for me to pin down exactly how it did form, what it constitutes and how it has and does today function. I have several questions, which include learning about the history and function of the College, as well as how the Orthodox view it and what would happen if unity were to occur between our churches.

What I'm really trying to wrap my mind around, I guess is really one big question. That is:

What do the "Orders" actually mean?

I understand that Cardinal Bishops have to be bishops (this includes the EC patriarchs) and are traditionally senior Curia officials. A Cardinal Bishop always serves as the Dean of the College. Then, there are Cardinal Priests. These confuse me greatly. Wikipedia gives Eugênio de Araújo Sales as an example of a "Cardinal Priest." He is the longest-serving cardinal in the College. Cardinal priests don't have to be bishops, but some are. How are you a bishop and a presbyter? I understand that "cardinal priest" is a separate title all together from the office to which a given cleric is ordained, but it turns confusing when I read the above link that tells me Cardinal Sales served as archbishop of São Sebastião do Rio de Janeiro for thirty years, but in his photograph he is clearly vested as a priest, yet wearing the red of a cardinal! This is highly confusing to me. If he was a bishop, how is he now a priest? Does that mean he no longer shares in the office of the episcopacy? That can't be right. He must still be a bishop. So...why he is actually vested a priest? This seems to hint that one's ordination and their order in the College is actually connected, but still not. I'm sure you can see my frustration.

This is also seen in the order of Cardinal Deacons. the current Protodeacon of the College is Jean-Louis Tauran. He was ordained a priest in 1969, then made titular archbishop of Thelepte by Pope John Paul II in 1990, but was actually consecrated to the episcopal office a year later! How can one be a "titular bishop" while still only a priest? Then, in 2003, he was made a Cardinal Deacon, which means liturgically he wears a mitre simplex, but also a dalmatic. What? I just don't get all of this conflation of offices. Very confusing to me!

It is confusing. Look to history, as always, to simplify things.

The college is a post schism creation. Like the Vatican's papacy.

Physician heal thyself...and look to history

There have been cardinals since the end of the fifth century. Not post-schism, any more than the papacy. I expect your history on the papacy is about as good as your history on cardinals.

A cardinal, of course, is an honorary title for a member of a select group of archbishops. And the title of archbishop has been around since waaaay back when. Let's not get silly. Unless Isa didn't know that, in which case he's talking out of his hat. Doesn't he need a new hat by now?

If you will, you can become all flame.Extra caritatem nulla salus.In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness". सर्वभूतहितἌνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas GandhiY dduw bo'r diolch.

On the question of Orders, historically (as in, a great deal of time ago), Cardinal Bishops were always bishops. Cardinal Priests were always priests. Cardinal Deacons were always deacons. As the Papacy gained in power and influence, it slowly started to become the case that nearly all Cardinals are bishops. In fact, now, it is only elderly priests who are elevated to the College who are not ordained (and, I believe, they may choose to be if they so desire).

In fact the opposite is true. All those made cardinals, who are not already, are to be ordained bishops. Only priests 80 and over named to the college may request to be dispensed from this requirement. Avery Cardinal Dulles was one such example.

Every once in a while, I look into various facets of the RCC to try to figure you guys out a little more, get a better understanding, etc. My family (up until a couple generations ago) was Roman Catholic, and so I have a love for the Latin tradition. Now, being Orthodox, I'm the closest thing my family has when it comes to returning to it's roots in Rome. I treasure what few religious antiques I've been able to salvage from my family.

Most recently, I've been trying to understand the College of Cardinals. It confuses me. A lot. It's something that developed over many centuries and even recently has undergone changes in the way it functions, so it's been difficult for me to pin down exactly how it did form, what it constitutes and how it has and does today function. I have several questions, which include learning about the history and function of the College, as well as how the Orthodox view it and what would happen if unity were to occur between our churches.

What I'm really trying to wrap my mind around, I guess is really one big question. That is:

What do the "Orders" actually mean?

I understand that Cardinal Bishops have to be bishops (this includes the EC patriarchs) and are traditionally senior Curia officials. A Cardinal Bishop always serves as the Dean of the College. Then, there are Cardinal Priests. These confuse me greatly. Wikipedia gives Eugênio de Araújo Sales as an example of a "Cardinal Priest." He is the longest-serving cardinal in the College. Cardinal priests don't have to be bishops, but some are. How are you a bishop and a presbyter? I understand that "cardinal priest" is a separate title all together from the office to which a given cleric is ordained, but it turns confusing when I read the above link that tells me Cardinal Sales served as archbishop of São Sebastião do Rio de Janeiro for thirty years, but in his photograph he is clearly vested as a priest, yet wearing the red of a cardinal! This is highly confusing to me. If he was a bishop, how is he now a priest? Does that mean he no longer shares in the office of the episcopacy? That can't be right. He must still be a bishop. So...why he is actually vested a priest? This seems to hint that one's ordination and their order in the College is actually connected, but still not. I'm sure you can see my frustration.

This is also seen in the order of Cardinal Deacons. the current Protodeacon of the College is Jean-Louis Tauran. He was ordained a priest in 1969, then made titular archbishop of Thelepte by Pope John Paul II in 1990, but was actually consecrated to the episcopal office a year later! How can one be a "titular bishop" while still only a priest? Then, in 2003, he was made a Cardinal Deacon, which means liturgically he wears a mitre simplex, but also a dalmatic. What? I just don't get all of this conflation of offices. Very confusing to me!

It is confusing. Look to history, as always, to simplify things.

The college is a post schism creation. Like the Vatican's papacy.

Physician heal thyself...and look to history

There have been cardinals since the end of the fifth century. Not post-schism, any more than the papacy. I expect your history on the papacy is about as good as your history on cardinals.

anything to back that up, besides your ex cathedra pronouncement? And just so we are clear, the evidence of the college of cardinals being pre-schism (which is what I said), and since the end of the fifth century. Heck, I'd be humbled if you can produce evidence of the college of cardinals before the close of the first millenium.

Quote

The cardinals were, therefore, from a very early period, assistants of the pope in his liturgical functions, in the care of the poor, the administration of papal finances and possessions, and the synodal disposition of important matters. They took on a very much greater importance, however, after the decree of Nicholas II (1059), "In nomine Domini", regulating papal elections. In accordance with this document the election of the pope and the government of the Church, during the vacancy of the Apostolic See, fell more and more into their hands; they passed to them exclusively after the Decretal of Alexander III, "Licet de vitandâ", at the third Lateran Council (1179). The increasing insignificance of the "regionary" and "palatine" clergy, from the middle of the twelfth century, coupled with the disappearance of the judices palatini, tended to enlarge the share of the cardinals in the administration of papal justice and finances, also of the fiefs of the Holy See and of the States of the Church. We may add to this that after the cessation of papal journeys to the different nations of Christendom and of the Roman synods under papal presidency, the cardinals remained almost the only counsellors and legates of the popes. Henceforth their functions were equivalent to those of the "permanent synod" and the syncelli at Constantinople (Sägmüller, "Die Tätigkeit und Stellung der Kardinäle bis Papst Bonifaz VIII", Freiburg, 1896, 16 sqq., 208 sqq.; S. Keller, "Die sieben römischen Pfalzrichter im byzantinischen Zeitalter", Stuttgart, 1904).

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

A cardinal, of course, is an honorary title for a member of a select group of archbishops. And the title of archbishop has been around since waaaay back when. Let's not get silly. Unless Isa didn't know that, in which case he's talking out of his hat. Doesn't he need a new hat by now?

evidently not.

The only archbishop waaaaay back when in Rome was the archbishop a/k/a the pope now (7th century or so, the title meandering from Alexandria-upon whom it was bestowed-through Carthage to Rome). The other half dozen or so bishops were suffragans, who consecrated the new archbishop (a similar set up was in Alexandria, but not in Constantinople, Antioch or Jerusalem). The first diocesan bishop, let alone archbishop, to be named cardinal didn't happen until 1163, when beseiged Pope Alexander III (another pope-antipope schism over the "font of unity") let Archbishop Konrad of Mainz keep his see, although named cardinal in the college at Rome.

Not all cardinals are bishops.

Do get your facts straight.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Sorry to resurrect this, but I also have been curious about this. Despite having the division of "cardinal bishops," "cardinal priests," and "cardinal deacons", all Cardinals today have an episcopal power, or higher than an episcopal power?

Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.

Sorry to resurrect this, but I also have been curious about this. Despite having the division of "cardinal bishops," "cardinal priests," and "cardinal deacons", all Cardinals today have an episcopal power, or higher than an episcopal power?

Uh, a Cardinal, in the Roman Catholic Church, is any of several archbishops given an honorary title which enables them, among other things, to take part in the election of the Pope.

In St. Louis, it's a baseball player, in Arizona it's an NFL player and in Stanford University, it's anyone who plays for the school.

That's it. Having never heard of 'cardinal deacons,' unless they're deacons who work in a Cardinal's cathedral, I don't know what you're talking about. As too often in these discussions, people can create more worries for themselves than they have to.

Sorry to resurrect this, but I also have been curious about this. Despite having the division of "cardinal bishops," "cardinal priests," and "cardinal deacons", all Cardinals today have an episcopal power, or higher than an episcopal power?

Uh, a Cardinal, in the Roman Catholic Church, is any of several archbishops given an honorary title which enables them, among other things, to take part in the election of the Pope.

In St. Louis, it's a baseball player, in Arizona it's an NFL player and in Stanford University, it's anyone who plays for the school.

That's it. Having never heard of 'cardinal deacons,' unless they're deacons who work in a Cardinal's cathedral, I don't know what you're talking about. As too often in these discussions, people can create more worries for themselves than they have to.

Actually, Cardinal Deacon is an order within the College of Cardinals. I believe there were 30 of them a few years ago.

Sorry to resurrect this, but I also have been curious about this. Despite having the division of "cardinal bishops," "cardinal priests," and "cardinal deacons", all Cardinals today have an episcopal power, or higher than an episcopal power?

Uh, a Cardinal, in the Roman Catholic Church, is any of several archbishops given an honorary title which enables them, among other things, to take part in the election of the Pope.

In St. Louis, it's a baseball player, in Arizona it's an NFL player and in Stanford University, it's anyone who plays for the school.

That's it. Having never heard of 'cardinal deacons,' unless they're deacons who work in a Cardinal's cathedral, I don't know what you're talking about. As too often in these discussions, people can create more worries for themselves than they have to.

If you read about the College of Cardinals, it's more confusing than you make it out to be.

Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.

Sorry to resurrect this, but I also have been curious about this. Despite having the division of "cardinal bishops," "cardinal priests," and "cardinal deacons", all Cardinals today have an episcopal power, or higher than an episcopal power?

This isn't entirely accurate, though virtually all Cardinals are bishops. Fr. Roberto Tucci, a Jesuit priest, was created a cardinal in 2001, and Pope John Paul II gave him a dispensation from the normal requirement to be ordained to the episcopate, if you are to be created a cardinal. There are some others who have been (or were about to turn) 80 at the time that they were to be created cardinals, who petitioned to be exempt from ordination to the episcopate, and who's petition was accepted. I believe all such men have been Jesuits.

Sorry to resurrect this, but I also have been curious about this. Despite having the division of "cardinal bishops," "cardinal priests," and "cardinal deacons", all Cardinals today have an episcopal power, or higher than an episcopal power?

AFAIR those 3 ranks are related only to their internal ranking and position during papal services. All cardinals (no matter "deacons" or "bishops") are higher in seniority that RC bishops who are not cardinals (including EC patriarchs). They all are allowed to wear palliums outside their respective dioceses or perform all sacraments without asking local bishops.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Who can watch the watchmen?"No one is paying attention to your post reports"Why do posters that claim to have me blocked keep sending me pms and responding to my posts? That makes no sense.

AFAIR those 3 ranks are related only to their internal ranking and position during papal services. All cardinals (no matter "deacons" or "bishops") are higher in seniority that RC bishops who are not cardinals (including EC patriarchs). They all are allowed to wear palliums outside their respective dioceses or perform all sacraments without asking local bishops.

EC Patriarchs, Major Archbishops, and Metropolitan heads of sui iuris Churches are given precedence over Cardinals. No Latin Metropolitan may wear his pallium outside his own province.

Sorry to resurrect this, but I also have been curious about this. Despite having the division of "cardinal bishops," "cardinal priests," and "cardinal deacons", all Cardinals today have an episcopal power, or higher than an episcopal power?

Uh, a Cardinal, in the Roman Catholic Church, is any of several archbishops given an honorary title which enables them, among other things, to take part in the election of the Pope.

In St. Louis, it's a baseball player, in Arizona it's an NFL player and in Stanford University, it's anyone who plays for the school.

That's it. Having never heard of 'cardinal deacons,' unless they're deacons who work in a Cardinal's cathedral, I don't know what you're talking about. As too often in these discussions, people can create more worries for themselves than they have to.

If you read about the College of Cardinals, it's more confusing than you make it out to be.

AFAIR those 3 ranks are related only to their internal ranking and position during papal services. All cardinals (no matter "deacons" or "bishops") are higher in seniority that RC bishops who are not cardinals (including EC patriarchs). They all are allowed to wear palliums outside their respective dioceses or perform all sacraments without asking local bishops.

EC Patriarchs, Major Archbishops, and Metropolitan heads of sui iuris Churches are given precedence over Cardinals. No Latin Metropolitan may wear his pallium outside his own province.

I stand corrected. They can use pastorals everywhere they want but the Polish wiki says otherwise about the precedence.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Who can watch the watchmen?"No one is paying attention to your post reports"Why do posters that claim to have me blocked keep sending me pms and responding to my posts? That makes no sense.

AFAIR those 3 ranks are related only to their internal ranking and position during papal services. All cardinals (no matter "deacons" or "bishops") are higher in seniority that RC bishops who are not cardinals (including EC patriarchs). They all are allowed to wear palliums outside their respective dioceses or perform all sacraments without asking local bishops.

EC Patriarchs, Major Archbishops, and Metropolitan heads of sui iuris Churches are given precedence over Cardinals. No Latin Metropolitan may wear his pallium outside his own province.

I stand corrected. They can use pastorals everywhere they want but the Polish wiki says otherwise about the precedence.

That precedence is only recently: before Vatican II a Latin cardinal outranked an eastern rite patriarch of the Vatican (there was no such thing as "sui juris") in the latter's own patriarchate.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Sorry to resurrect this, but I also have been curious about this. Despite having the division of "cardinal bishops," "cardinal priests," and "cardinal deacons", all Cardinals today have an episcopal power, or higher than an episcopal power?

Uh, a Cardinal, in the Roman Catholic Church, is any of several archbishops given an honorary title which enables them, among other things, to take part in the election of the Pope.

In St. Louis, it's a baseball player, in Arizona it's an NFL player and in Stanford University, it's anyone who plays for the school.

That's it. Having never heard of 'cardinal deacons,' unless they're deacons who work in a Cardinal's cathedral, I don't know what you're talking about. As too often in these discussions, people can create more worries for themselves than they have to.

If you read about the College of Cardinals, it's more confusing than you make it out to be.

And it was not until 1962 that their supreme pontiff established the norm that they also be bishops, and still, the requirement can be dispensed with (being supreme pontiff and all). There are cardinal deacons who are not bishops today (at present 4).

A cardinal, of course, is an honorary title for a member of a select group of archbishops. And the title of archbishop has been around since waaaay back when. Let's not get silly. Unless Isa didn't know that, in which case he's talking out of his hat. Doesn't he need a new hat by now?

evidently not.

The only archbishop waaaaay back when in Rome was the archbishop a/k/a the pope now (7th century or so, the title meandering from Alexandria-upon whom it was bestowed-through Carthage to Rome). The other half dozen or so bishops were suffragans, who consecrated the new archbishop (a similar set up was in Alexandria, but not in Constantinople, Antioch or Jerusalem). The first diocesan bishop, let alone archbishop, to be named cardinal didn't happen until 1163, when beseiged Pope Alexander III (another pope-antipope schism over the "font of unity") let Archbishop Konrad of Mainz keep his see, although named cardinal in the college at Rome.

Not all cardinals are bishops.

Do get your facts straight.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Sorry to resurrect this, but I also have been curious about this. Despite having the division of "cardinal bishops," "cardinal priests," and "cardinal deacons", all Cardinals today have an episcopal power, or higher than an episcopal power?

Uh, a Cardinal, in the Roman Catholic Church, is any of several archbishops given an honorary title which enables them, among other things, to take part in the election of the Pope.

In St. Louis, it's a baseball player, in Arizona it's an NFL player and in Stanford University, it's anyone who plays for the school.

That's it. Having never heard of 'cardinal deacons,' unless they're deacons who work in a Cardinal's cathedral, I don't know what you're talking about. As too often in these discussions, people can create more worries for themselves than they have to.

If you read about the College of Cardinals, it's more confusing than you make it out to be.

And it was not until 1962 that their supreme pontiff established the norm that they also be bishops, and still, the requirement can be dispensed with (being supreme pontiff and all). There are cardinal deacons who are not bishops today (at present 4).

A cardinal, of course, is an honorary title for a member of a select group of archbishops. And the title of archbishop has been around since waaaay back when. Let's not get silly. Unless Isa didn't know that, in which case he's talking out of his hat. Doesn't he need a new hat by now?

evidently not.

The only archbishop waaaaay back when in Rome was the archbishop a/k/a the pope now (7th century or so, the title meandering from Alexandria-upon whom it was bestowed-through Carthage to Rome). The other half dozen or so bishops were suffragans, who consecrated the new archbishop (a similar set up was in Alexandria, but not in Constantinople, Antioch or Jerusalem). The first diocesan bishop, let alone archbishop, to be named cardinal didn't happen until 1163, when beseiged Pope Alexander III (another pope-antipope schism over the "font of unity") let Archbishop Konrad of Mainz keep his see, although named cardinal in the college at Rome.

Not all cardinals are bishops.

Do get your facts straight.

and also, in theory, because it is NOT tied to Holy Orders, a woman may also become a cardinal.

Sorry to resurrect this, but I also have been curious about this. Despite having the division of "cardinal bishops," "cardinal priests," and "cardinal deacons", all Cardinals today have an episcopal power, or higher than an episcopal power?

Uh, a Cardinal, in the Roman Catholic Church, is any of several archbishops given an honorary title which enables them, among other things, to take part in the election of the Pope.

In St. Louis, it's a baseball player, in Arizona it's an NFL player and in Stanford University, it's anyone who plays for the school.

That's it. Having never heard of 'cardinal deacons,' unless they're deacons who work in a Cardinal's cathedral, I don't know what you're talking about. As too often in these discussions, people can create more worries for themselves than they have to.

If you read about the College of Cardinals, it's more confusing than you make it out to be.

And it was not until 1962 that their supreme pontiff established the norm that they also be bishops, and still, the requirement can be dispensed with (being supreme pontiff and all). There are cardinal deacons who are not bishops today (at present 4).

A cardinal, of course, is an honorary title for a member of a select group of archbishops. And the title of archbishop has been around since waaaay back when. Let's not get silly. Unless Isa didn't know that, in which case he's talking out of his hat. Doesn't he need a new hat by now?

evidently not.

The only archbishop waaaaay back when in Rome was the archbishop a/k/a the pope now (7th century or so, the title meandering from Alexandria-upon whom it was bestowed-through Carthage to Rome). The other half dozen or so bishops were suffragans, who consecrated the new archbishop (a similar set up was in Alexandria, but not in Constantinople, Antioch or Jerusalem). The first diocesan bishop, let alone archbishop, to be named cardinal didn't happen until 1163, when beseiged Pope Alexander III (another pope-antipope schism over the "font of unity") let Archbishop Konrad of Mainz keep his see, although named cardinal in the college at Rome.

Not all cardinals are bishops.

Do get your facts straight.

and also, in theory, because it is NOT tied to Holy Orders, a woman may also become a cardinal.

Assuming a change in canon law (which when you have a pope is not difficult to do).

Sorry to resurrect this, but I also have been curious about this. Despite having the division of "cardinal bishops," "cardinal priests," and "cardinal deacons", all Cardinals today have an episcopal power, or higher than an episcopal power?

Uh, a Cardinal, in the Roman Catholic Church, is any of several archbishops given an honorary title which enables them, among other things, to take part in the election of the Pope.

In St. Louis, it's a baseball player, in Arizona it's an NFL player and in Stanford University, it's anyone who plays for the school.

That's it. Having never heard of 'cardinal deacons,' unless they're deacons who work in a Cardinal's cathedral, I don't know what you're talking about. As too often in these discussions, people can create more worries for themselves than they have to.

If you read about the College of Cardinals, it's more confusing than you make it out to be.

And it was not until 1962 that their supreme pontiff established the norm that they also be bishops, and still, the requirement can be dispensed with (being supreme pontiff and all). There are cardinal deacons who are not bishops today (at present 4).

A cardinal, of course, is an honorary title for a member of a select group of archbishops. And the title of archbishop has been around since waaaay back when. Let's not get silly. Unless Isa didn't know that, in which case he's talking out of his hat. Doesn't he need a new hat by now?

evidently not.

The only archbishop waaaaay back when in Rome was the archbishop a/k/a the pope now (7th century or so, the title meandering from Alexandria-upon whom it was bestowed-through Carthage to Rome). The other half dozen or so bishops were suffragans, who consecrated the new archbishop (a similar set up was in Alexandria, but not in Constantinople, Antioch or Jerusalem). The first diocesan bishop, let alone archbishop, to be named cardinal didn't happen until 1163, when beseiged Pope Alexander III (another pope-antipope schism over the "font of unity") let Archbishop Konrad of Mainz keep his see, although named cardinal in the college at Rome.

Not all cardinals are bishops.

Do get your facts straight.

and also, in theory, because it is NOT tied to Holy Orders, a woman may also become a cardinal.

Assuming a change in canon law (which when you have a pope is not difficult to do).

From Book II, Part II, Section I, Chapter III of the Code of Canon Law:

"Can. 351 §1 Those to be promoted Cardinals are men freely selected by the Roman Pontiff, who are at least in the order of priesthood and are truly outstanding in doctrine, virtue, piety and prudence in practical matters; those who are not already Bishops must receive episcopal consecration."

"A well-known Swiss religion magazine is circulating a petition for Pope Francis to begin appointing women as cardinals and has attracted signatures of a number of European theologians and women religious."

Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.Extra caritatem nulla salus.In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness". सर्वभूतहितἌνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas GandhiY dduw bo'r diolch.

"A well-known Swiss religion magazine is circulating a petition for Pope Francis to begin appointing women as cardinals and has attracted signatures of a number of European theologians and women religious."

Huff Post ran an over the top blog post on this last week. The author was panting so loudly in eager anticipation he or she probably choked to death on his own saliva. It was childish and absurd. To appoint a woman cardinal would cause a major schism. While the new pope is many things, I doubt he wants to go down in history as having caused the greatest fracture in the Catholic church since Luther posted his theses.

"A well-known Swiss religion magazine is circulating a petition for Pope Francis to begin appointing women as cardinals and has attracted signatures of a number of European theologians and women religious."

Huff Post ran an over the top blog post on this last week. The author was panting so loudly in eager anticipation he or she probably choked to death on his own saliva. It was childish and absurd. To appoint a woman cardinal would cause a major schism. While the new pope is many things, I doubt he wants to go down in history as having caused the greatest fracture in the Catholic church since Luther posted his theses.

Well, he would have to change canon law first, which, as I understand it, is not impossible; though I suspect there's a greater chance of the Pope allowing women deacons than women cardinals.

« Last Edit: October 21, 2013, 03:03:22 PM by Jetavan »

Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.Extra caritatem nulla salus.In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness". सर्वभूतहितἌνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas GandhiY dduw bo'r diolch.